Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The petitioner, Mr. Ravi Dhankar, has filed the present writ petition against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.5.2003 dismissing O.A. No. 3257/2002 filed by one Mr. Ishwar Singh against the Commissioner of Police, Government of NCT of Delhi.

2. Mr. Ishwar Singh is the grand-father of the petitioner herein and had filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal seeking appointment of the petitioner in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. Mother of the petitioner, Mrs. Sumitra Devi, was working as a Head Constable in Delhi Police. She committed suicide and expired on 9.11.1995. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner made an application with Delhi Police for appointment of the petitioner as Constable on compassionate grounds on 23.9.1996. In response to this application, the petitioner's father was informed that the petitioner was minor and he may apply for the post of Constable on compassionate grounds as and when he becomes major and his application will be considered on merits at that time. Thereafter, the grand-father of the petitioner made an application on 16.9.2000, inter alia, stating that the petitioner had attained the age of majority and had also passed his matriculation examination. The Delhi Police was requested to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in place of Mrs. Sumitra Devi.

3. The Delhi Police, however, by its letter dated 3.7.2002 informed the grand-father of the petitioner, Mr. Ishwar Singh, that the case of appointment of Mr. Ravi Dhankar on compassionate grounds was considered by the Screening Committee and after due deliberation the same stands rejected. It was mentioned in this letter that the Screening Committee had taken into account the financial condition of the deceased's family, liabilities and other relevant facts like number of earning members, size of the family, age of the deceased, age of children as well as instructions of the Government of India on the subject and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 see 138 before rejecting the claim.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 3.7.2002, the father of the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application bearing No. 3257/02 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the Original Application was bad in law for non-joinder of necessary party as Mr. Ravi Dhankar had not been impleaded as a party. On merits also, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the authorities had examined the relevant facts including the retirement benefits and the fact that compassionate appointments are restricted only to 5% of the quota of direct recruitment and dismissed the said application.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been wrongly rejected and the order passed by the Delhi Police is arbitrary and contra to the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not apply its judicious mind while dismissing the Original Application.

.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that all pensionary benefits of the deceased, Sumitra Devi have been paid to the two children including the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment was considered by the Screening Committee but was found to be less deserving in comparison to other cases, which were approved. Reference was made to the O.M of Government of India dated 9.10.1998 that compassionate appointment can be made upto a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in Group 'C' and 'D' posts.

7. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is normally granted to enable a family to tide over the sudden economic calamity and it should be strictly made as per the policy/rules in this regard. As compassionate a